While I am concerned about the current Supreme Court's tilt to the right, occasionally they surprise me. Such is the case with the March 1, 2011 decision in Staub v. Proctor Hospital. In an 8-0 decision (Justice Kagan did not participate), Justice Scalia, of all people, made it easier to prove that a termination was for a discriminatory reason.
The plaintiff, Vincent Staub, was a member of the Army Reserves. According to the Court, his supervisor at the hospital where he worked was "hostile to Staub's military obligations." Mr. Staub ultimately was fired by the hospital's vice president of HR. Mr. Staub claimed that his termination was unlawful, even though the VP of HR was not the person who discriminated against him, and sued under a statute, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 ("USERRA"), that makes it illegal to discriminate against service members. This sort of case is known as a "cat's paw" case, where a fired employee seeks to hold his employer liable for the animus of a supervisor who was not charged with making the ultimate employment decision.
Before this case, most courts would deny such a claim unless the discriminating supervisor exercised such “singular influence” over the decision-maker that the decision to terminate was the product of “blind reliance.” This is a very hard standard to meet. Justice Scalia's opinion lowered the bar. The new standard holds an employer liable for discrimination when a supervisor performs an act motivated by discriminatory animus that is intended by the supervisor to cause (and ultimately does cause) an adverse employment action such as a termination.
While this case technically only applies to claims under USERRA, the same logic applies to claims of other types of discrimination under other federal anti-discrimination laws. This case is a rare instance of our conservative Supreme Court making it easier, not harder, for workers. And to that, I say "Well done!"
No comments:
Post a Comment